THE

LIBERTARIAN

ENTERPRISE

Why Compromise Will Never Work

In the wake of the Libertarian party platform being decided upon -
and 'wake' here should be pictured as the type of chum and fish shit
filled cloud that is appropriate - we are once again at war with
ourselves. Quite honestly, I'm beginning to wonder if I should just
up and join the republican party, at least this last convention, they
managed to get all their turds in one heap. And the worst part of the
whole mess is, I think that some (mayhaps even 'most') of the people
within the Libertarian party who disagree with me (and therefore, are
wrong) are of the best intentions. When they look at me, and smile,
and tell me that compromise with a group of people - a culture, more
accurately - that has done nothing but shit on everything I believe
in for over 150 years is the only way to regain the type of freedom
upon which this country was founded, I actually don't usually feel
physically ill.

"I certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of
force as a means of achieving political or social goals." Now, I
presume that unless the party's cheese has completely slid off of its
cracker, you still have to be a member of the party to vote on the
platform. And if you're a member of the party, you sign that
statement (I checked to make sure they were still including it). I
don't see much gray area there. Gun control is a social goal. Forcing
the issue by requiring me to be licensed to carry a firearm is
initiation of force - all laws being in the end enforced at bayonet
point. If you believe in taking the existing system back over, with
slow, incremental changes, I submit to you that you are probably in
the wrong party, by definition. Plus, I believe that such an approach
would work much better if it were attempted by 'corrupting' one of
the two branches of the National Party - they are far more
experienced at slow incremental change, anyhow. However, that is
neither here nor there.

Now, based on the principle that the initiation of force is wrong, we
should not make it our stated goal to initiate force against citizens
of this country. If the nonaggression principle is no longer the
party's mantra, then take it off of the membership application. That
seems simple enough to me. However, as I said earlier, I honestly
think that a majority of these people are working towards what they
believe is the greater good of the party, and indeed, what is the
greater good of the country. It is their truthfully held belief that
the slow, incremental approach is the way to regain what we have
lost. Now, here is where I go out on a limb.

Short of something monstrous and cataclysmic happening, we will never
- EVER - elect a Libertarian to the White House. The system today is
too corrupt, people plain just don't care, and anyone who thinks
their vote for president matters (I use matters in terms of selecting
the president, it is actually quite important to me to vote from an
abstract philosophical standpoint) needs to re-read the constitution.
Assuming - by a miracle that to my mind would come close in stature
to the Second Coming - we ever have a candidate whom a majority of
America would vote for, and who is true to Libertarian principles:

(1) The cynical part of me suggests I place my money on that person
suffering a sudden and unexplainable brain hemorrhage that left a .40
inch hole in the center of their forehead.

(2) If he managed to garner ONE electoral vote, that person would
probably join him in the morgue.

Paranoid, I know. However, I would like to point out that things are
sure as shit not getting any better as time passes, and so far the
government has shown no qualms about killing, imprisoning, or
"disappearing" people - and none of these people has been a serious
threat, not on the scale that a viable Libertarian candidate for
president would be.

So, the solution is to dilute the message, to make it less
threatening to both the great unwashed masses, whose beer-swilling
sensibilities we may offend, and to those who oversee us now, whose
beer-swilling sensibilities we may offend. Horse shit. The whole
reason the Libertarian party was founded, as I understood it, the
whole reason that we exist, is because we are not a group of people
who will compromise to get our goals accomplished, we are not a group
of people who will whore ourselves out to anyone with the cash to pay
for the advertising we need to get elected. If this is not the party
that believes in those things, then I'm in the wrong place. And this
fine publication needs a new title.

As I said, I believe most of you who may be reading this, and calling
me naive (or perhaps a few more choice adjectives), have your hearts
in the right place, but your butts in the wrong seats. The
Republicans and the Democrats have been practicing this act of
slicing our freedom away for quite some time now. They are going to
recognize it being employed against them, by a third party. They will
not allow it to happen, not in that manner. That, I can almost
guarantee you. As I stated previously, I believe you would be far
better off trying to slowly modify and change the existing major
parties from within. That, they are still receptive to, because they
are always looking for someone else to make promises to and pick up a
block of voters. I am sure they would be willing to promise you a
couple of things - I mean, shit, at one time or another, they
promised the Native Americans most of the country - in exchange for
your votes. Their goal will never change.

It does not matter how honest your intentions are, compromise will
never work with people who are dishonorable and have the destruction
of everything you hold dear at heart. After all, what possible good
are you to them? The Libertarian Party needs to remain strong, to
remain principled, not out of any hope of changing the system, but
based on the same logic as attempting to gain one million signatures
on a petition to convince you to run for president - to show that
there is a principled constituency that will not and can not be
ignored. The party of principle must never surrender the one thing we
have, that other parties do not, assuming it is not already too late
for us as well. Rudyard Kipling advised that "The end of that game is
oppression and shame ...", and I believe he may be absolutely dead
right.